Anonymous wrote:Revolution Wind project that was canceled by Trump has 20 year contracts with Connecticut and Rhode Island utilities for a $0.09 kWh.

Connecticut price per kWh is $0.29 for residential and $0.21 commercial. Rhodes Island is $0.27 per kWh.

Smart play!

Anonymous wrote:We started losing battery manufacturing jobs in the US under Clinton and NAFTA.

We had a rechargeable battery plant employing 500 local people. The factory shut down during the Clinton administration and NAFTA.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Nobody uses tech from the 90s any more.

Notice how much smaller your cell phone battery has gotten since then.

Time for bed for you

We started losing battery manufacturing jobs in the US under Clinton and NAFTA.

We had a rechargeable battery plant employing 500 local people. The factory shut down during the Clinton administration and NAFTA.

Based on reports from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Lazard, and Visual Capitalist, here is a comparison of electricity generation costs:

Onshore Wind $61/MWh
Utility-Scale Solar PV $61/MWh
Combined-Cycle Natural Gas $76/MWh
Offshore Wind $71–$139/MWh
Gas Peaker Plant $149–$251/MWh (assuming $3.45/MMBtu)
Nuclear $111–$236/MWh (for subsidized Pink Hydrogen)

Anonymous wrote:You are comparing residential prices with wholesale. Connecticut and Rhode Island are so expensive because they are part of RGGI driving up prices.

No it’s because they use fossil fuels. But hey keep pushing that BS and pay that ignorance tax.

You are comparing residential prices with wholesale. Connecticut and Rhode Island are so expensive because they are part of RGGI driving up prices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you driven through eastern Loudoun lately?

It is a dystopian landscape of data centers everywhere. Data centers do not require a lot of employees. What they do require is huge, huge amounts of energy.

The data centers drive the AI industry and the high tech industry. But they use a lot of energy. Count on your electric bills going through the roof until they figure out alternative energy sources. Within the industry, some are considering nuclear energy to fill the need.

If you are a residential customer in Loudoun County, why should your electric bill go up even a penny? You aren't the ones using all that power. The data centers should be the ones paying for it. Residential consumers shouldn't be subsidizing big corporations and their data centers. This is yet another example of capitalism run amok in America.

Ultimately that's a political decision, but the most natural result is that everyone, both residential and commercial, pay more until demand matches supply. Sometimes, increased demand makes a major project (like a whole damn dam) viable, that brings the unit cost back down.

So your answer is to pick the most expensive available options because you like coal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you driven through eastern Loudoun lately?

It is a dystopian landscape of data centers everywhere. Data centers do not require a lot of employees. What they do require is huge, huge amounts of energy.

The data centers drive the AI industry and the high tech industry. But they use a lot of energy. Count on your electric bills going through the roof until they figure out alternative energy sources. Within the industry, some are considering nuclear energy to fill the need.

If you are a residential customer in Loudoun County, why should your electric bill go up even a penny? You aren't the ones using all that power. The data centers should be the ones paying for it. Residential consumers shouldn't be subsidizing big corporations and their data centers. This is yet another example of capitalism run amok in America.

Ultimately that's a political decision, but the most natural result is that everyone, both residential and commercial, pay more until demand matches supply. Sometimes, increased demand makes a major project (like a whole damn dam) viable, that brings the unit cost back down.

Anonymous wrote:No need for grants. Just put a high tariff on Chinese imports, forcing them to manufacture in America. Have a rule that these Chinese companies must be in a partnership with an American company, that is at least 50% American. Then you steal the technology from the factory in America.

And then what? America wont have anyone left who can read a schematic.

Esmeralda 7 canceled by Trump is estimated to deliver 6.2 gigawatts at $0.03-$0.045 per kWh.

Nevada Utilities are currently charging $0.12 per kWh.

This is winning. Solar electricity just taste wrong!

Revolution Wind project that was canceled by Trump has 20 year contracts with Connecticut and Rhode Island utilities for a $0.09 kWh.

Connecticut price per kWh is $0.29 for residential and $0.21 commercial. Rhodes Island is $0.27 per kWh.

Smart play!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/28/wind-power-cut-uk-energy-costs-ucl-study

UK saved 100 billion by using wind. Meanwhile Trump is trying to shut down already built wind farms because the Republican position has moved from “all of the above” energy strategy (meaning coal + gas + solar + wind) to coal uber alles, because (according to him) people like mining coal (or perhaps because the Loch brothers own most of the coal in the country).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you driven through eastern Loudoun lately?

It is a dystopian landscape of data centers everywhere. Data centers do not require a lot of employees. What they do require is huge, huge amounts of energy.

The data centers drive the AI industry and the high tech industry. But they use a lot of energy. Count on your electric bills going through the roof until they figure out alternative energy sources. Within the industry, some are considering nuclear energy to fill the need.

And since batteries are not an energy source, only an energy storage device, that $700 million is best spent elsewhere.

The batteries stores solar and wind generated energy. 93% of the new generated electricity was solar last year and it is looking like it will be more this year. Solar with batteries by itself can easily supply all the increase electricity demand(estimated at 3.5% for the next 10 years). This does not even include wind.

No one is building coal or nuclear power plants. The gas plants are one of the most expensive sources of power and are alway the first taken off line.

Building a gas power plant requires pipelines, turbines, transformers, switchgear, and pipe. All of which have spiked in cost including the fuel- natural gas. There are severe and long term bottlenecks on turbines.

The option is to use solar, wind and batteries and actually easily meet demand at reduce rate or do what you want and pay through the nose. It would be nice to actually be able to manufacture these things in the US but I guess maga is against manufacturing things in the US.

Another point is the Chinese are getting spin off technological break through similar to what we got with a space program. The military applications for the battery technology, electric motors, lidar, lithium processing, etc will be needed to stay relevant.

Europe has done all this, and the result has been higher energy costs, and deindustrualization.
Somehow reality never matches the theory.

Well no that is not true. They are starting to this. The US, China and Europe have an established grid generating power with old power plants that are still in their life cycle. The new energy generation is solar, wind and batteries. It has captured all the growth because it is cheaper to build and run vs fossil fuel and nuclear.

Look at the compound annual growth rate(CAGR) in solar, wind and EVs(all incorporate batteries). Solar and wind projected CAGR per year 2025-2030.

Europe Solar 12.3% wind 11-12%
USA 15.11% grid(down from 23% past 5 years)Wind 15.2%
Central America and South America 20% Wind 5-8%
Australian 14-16% Wind 19%
Asia 25% Wind 10-12%
Africa 31.9% Wind 12%
Middle East 12-27% Wind 5-12%

EVs projected CAGR is 32% or $1.5 trillion to $6.5 trillion by 2030.

This is all at current pricing. Solar and wind keep improving generational efficiency and reducing cost. EV batteries are currently at 165 kWh/kg and cost $139 per kWh. They are projected to increase in energy density to 400-500 kWh/kg and cost $50-$80 per kWh. Add in electric motor improvements - 750 horse power from a 25 pound motor with a 20% reduction in energy consumption.

EVs by 2030 conservatively could cost 1/2 the price of an ICE and have a 750 mile range.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you driven through eastern Loudoun lately?

It is a dystopian landscape of data centers everywhere. Data centers do not require a lot of employees. What they do require is huge, huge amounts of energy.

The data centers drive the AI industry and the high tech industry. But they use a lot of energy. Count on your electric bills going through the roof until they figure out alternative energy sources. Within the industry, some are considering nuclear energy to fill the need.

And since batteries are not an energy source, only an energy storage device, that $700 million is best spent elsewhere.

where? Argentina?